Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation

This is another thing about Alabama to watch out for; most of us on the registry do not have the money to pay our fines and other penalties. It really is all about the money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/probation-fees-multiply-as-companies-profit.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all


Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: July 2, 2012


CHILDERSBURG, Ala. — Three years ago, Gina Ray, who is now 31 and unemployed, was fined $179 for speeding. She failed to show up at court (she says the ticket bore the wrong date), so her license was revoked.


When she was next pulled over, she was, of course, driving without a license. By then her fees added up to more than $1,500. Unable to pay, she was handed over to a private probation company and jailed — charged an additional fee for each day behind bars.


For that driving offense, Ms. Ray has been locked up three times for a total of 40 days and owes $3,170, much of it to the probation company. Her story, in hardscrabble, rural Alabama, where Krispy Kreme promises that “two can dine for $5.99,” is not about innocence.


It is, rather, about the mushrooming of fines and fees levied by money-starved towns across the country and the for-profit businesses that administer the system. The result is that growing numbers of poor people, like Ms. Ray, are ending up jailed and in debt for minor infractions.


“With so many towns economically strapped, there is growing pressure on the courts to bring in money rather than mete out justice,” said Lisa W. Borden, a partner in Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, a large law firm in Birmingham, Ala., who has spent a great deal of time on the issue. “The companies they hire are aggressive. Those arrested are not told about the right to counsel or asked whether they are indigent or offered an alternative to fines and jail. There are real constitutional issues at stake.”


Half a century ago in a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that those accused of crimes had to be provided a lawyer if they could not afford one. But in misdemeanors, the right to counsel is rarely brought up, even though defendants can run the risk of jail. The probation companies promise revenue to the towns, while saying they also help offenders, and the defendants often end up lost in a legal Twilight Zone.


Here in Childersburg, where there is no public transportation, Ms. Ray has plenty of company in her plight. Richard Garrett has spent a total of 24 months in jail and owes $10,000, all for traffic and license violations that began a decade ago. A onetime employee of United States Steel, Mr. Garrett is suffering from health difficulties and is without work. William M. Dawson, a Birmingham lawyer and Democratic Party activist, has filed a lawsuit for Mr. Garrett and others against the local authorities and the probation company, Judicial Correction Services, which is based in Georgia.


“The Supreme Court has made clear that it is unconstitutional to jail people just because they can’t pay a fine,” Mr. Dawson said in an interview.


In Georgia, three dozen for-profit probation companies operate in hundreds of courts, and there have been similar lawsuits. In one, Randy Miller, 39, an Iraq war veteran who had lost his job, was jailed after failing to make child support payments of $860 a month. In another, Hills McGee, with a monthly income of $243 in veterans benefits, was charged with public drunkenness, assessed $270 by a court and put on probation through a private company. The company added a $15 enrollment fee and $39 in monthly fees. That put his total for a year above $700, which Mr. McGee, 53, struggled to meet before being jailed for failing to pay it all.


“These companies are bill collectors, but they are given the authority to say to someone that if he doesn’t pay, he is going to jail,” said John B. Long, a lawyer in Augusta, Ga., who is taking the issue to a federal appeals court this fall. “There are things like garbage collection where private companies are O.K. No one’s liberty is affected. The closer you get to locking someone up, the closer you get to a constitutional issue.”


The issue of using the courts to produce income has caught the attention of the country’s legal establishment. A recent study by the nonpartisan Conference of State Court Administrators, “Courts Are Not Revenue Centers,” said that in traffic violations, “court leaders face the greatest challenge in ensuring that fines, fees and surcharges are not simply an alternate form of taxation.”


J. Scott Vowell, the presiding judge of Alabama’s 10th Judicial Circuit, said in an interview that his state’s Legislature, like many across the country, was pressuring courts to produce revenue, and that some legislators even believed courts should be financially self-sufficient.


In a 2010 study, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law examined the fee structure in the 15 states — including California, Florida and Texas — with the largest prison populations. It asserted: “Many states are imposing new and often onerous ‘user fees’ on individuals with criminal convictions. Yet far from being easy money, these fees impose severe — and often hidden — costs on communities, taxpayers and indigent people convicted of crimes. They create new paths to prison for those unable to pay their debts and make it harder to find employment and housing as well as to meet child support obligations.”


Most of those fees are for felonies and do not involve private probation companies, which have so far been limited to chasing those guilty of misdemeanors. A decade or two ago, many states abandoned pursuing misdemeanor fees because it was time-consuming and costly. Companies like Judicial Correction Services saw an opportunity. They charge public authorities nothing and make their money by adding fees onto the bills of the defendants.


Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who teaches at Yale Law School, said courts were increasingly using fees “for such things as the retirement funds for various court officials, law enforcement functions such as police training and crime laboratories, victim assistance programs and even the court’s computer system.” He added, “In one county in Pennsylvania, 26 different fees totaling $2,500 are assessed in addition to the fine.”


Mr. Dawson’s Alabama lawsuit alleges that Judicial Correction Services does not discuss alternatives to fines or jail and that its training manual “is devoid of any discussion of indigency or waiver of fees.”


In a joint telephone interview, two senior officials of Judicial Correction Services, Robert H. McMichael, its chief executive, and Kevin Egan, its chief marketing officer, rejected the lawsuit’s accusations. They said that the company does try to help those in need, but that the authority to determine who is indigent rests with the court, not the company.


“We hear a lot of ‘I can’t pay the fee,’ ” Mr. Egan said. “It is not our job to figure that out. Only the judge can make that determination.” Mr. Egan said his company had doubled the number of completed sentences where it is employed to more than two-thirds, from about one-third, and that this serves the company, the towns and the defendant. “Our job is to keep people out of jail,” he said. “We have a financial interest in getting them to comply. If they don’t pay, we don’t get paid.”


Mr. Bright, of the Southern Center for Human Rights, said that with the private companies seeking a profit, with courts in need of income and with the most vulnerable caught up in the system, “we end up balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in society.”

AL RSO Registry Fee Law

I recently added a registry fees fact guide to my main website at www.oncefallen.com. Thus, I thought I'd take the time to review the new Alabama registry fees law to clarify the fee issue:

Alabama: From the recently enacted SB 296: Section 22. (33a) An adult sex offender shall pay a registration fee in the amount of ten dollars ($10) to each registering agency where the adult sex offender resides beginning with the first quarterly registration on or after July 1, 2011, and at each quarterly registration thereafter. (b) Each time an adult sex offender terminates his or her residence and establishes a new residence, he or she shall pay a
registration fee in the amount of ten dollars ($10) to each registering agency where the adult sex offender
establishes a new residence. (c) If, at the time of registration, the adult sex offender is unable to pay the registration fee, the registering agency may require the adult sex offender to pay the fee in installments not to exceed 90 days.  The registering agency shall waive the registration fee if the adult sex offender has an order from the court declaring his or her indigence. In the event the adult sex offender is determined to be indigent, a periodic review of the adult sex offender's indigent status shall be conducted by the court to determine if the offender is no longer indigent. Further, if the offender is determined to be indigent by the sentencing court, nothing in this act shall prohibit the offender from being placed on a payment plan where the entire fee is collected in total. (d) The fees collected under this section shall be to the registering agency to defray the costs of sex offender registration, verification, and notification. (e) Any person who willfully fails to pay the required registration fee at the time of registration, or at the time at which the installment payment is due, shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction for willful failure to pay the required fee, the adult sex offender shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

 While I think the fees should be challenged in court (as discussed in my fact guide), it appears those of you who are concerned over registry fees should petition the court to be considered indigent and thus be free of paying the fees. This is something every registrant needs to pursue. 

One of my readers reminded me about the Federal "Poverty guidelines." Personally I find the numbers very low, as Alabama's poverty level is about $10,890 per year. However, I'm sure many of us hover around that line. even if you are above that line, I think you could still argue indigence, it is a matter of doing your math. For example, Gas is $3+ per gallon and most cars get maybe 20 miles per gallon on average (less in the city and if . Chances are just to go to work, you are filling up weekly at a cost of up to $100 to refill your tank. That's as much as $400 per month. You essentially have to argue your take home pay and your living expenses are so close paying for extra registration cases a financial burden.

I previously mentioned that Ohio had recently ruled their version of the Adam Walsh Act was indeed punitive. You may ant to utilize this case decision into your argument:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3374.pdf

More news about the new law to take effect July 1st

It seems this new law recently passed is even worse than previously thought. The Cullman Times reports even MORE new provisions to the newest law taking effect July 1st, 2011. The Day Labor law will effectively prevent registrants from obtaining employment, as most day laborers don't even know where they will work. Who will be able to afford the fees and GPS? It is obviously a ploy to incarcerate those on the list.

http://www.cullmantimes.com/local/x1277747145/Tough-new-sex-offender-law-goes-into-effect-July-1

A few other significant changes to the sex offender law include:

• Registered sex offenders who are homeless are required to check in once a week.
• Those who do day labor must provide local law enforcement with details about where and when they will be working each day.
• Sex offenders will have to pay a $10 fee every time they register. That same fee will also be charged for every move.
• A travel permit is required through local law enforcement if a sex offender plans to be away from their residence for more than three days or if they plan to travel outside the area.
• Those sex offenders who have been classified as sexual predators or convicted of sexually violent crimes will be required to wear a Global Positioning System (GPS) for 10 years, at their own expense.
• Some youthful offenders and juveniles, those charged with more serious sex crimes, will have to register for a lifetime instead of 10 years.

State's sex offender laws get tougher

No surprise since no one is fighting anything there. No one has contacted me in support of this site since it began a year ago. If you don't voice your opposition when it is in session, it is harder to fight laws after they pass.

http://thedailysentinel.com/news/article_14e764b0-9798-11e0-9bc8-001cc4c002e0.html

State's sex offender laws get tougher

Posted: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:47 pm

By DeWayne Patterson

Gov. Robert Bentley recently signed legislation making Alabama's existing sex offender registration laws tougher.

"They needed to be tougher," said Jackson County Sgt. Investigator Paul Smith, who oversees the county's sex offender registration. "There's some really good changes. At the same time, it's going to double everyone in the state's workload, but that's not a bad thing."

Smith said, effective July 1, sex offenders must register quarterly or four times per year rather than only twice. Previously, a sex offender moving into Alabama had seven days to register. Smith said that's been changed to immediately.

Sex offenders will now also be required to pay a $10 fee each time of registeration or transfer of residence.

Smith said the new law also changes it from a misdemeanor to a felony for a sex offender to deface or alter an identification card.

It will also be a felony to harbor, assist conceal or withhold information about a sex offender. "We've been screaming about folks hiding offenders for years," said Smith. "Now, they can be charged."

Jackson County currently has 72 adult sex offenders, according to Smith, seven of which are currently incarcerated.

It really IS all about the money-- AL SORNA

The truth comes out-- it is all about the money. That, and trying to find lame excuses to lock up people who have completed their sentences. Considering how few actually have a job due to Predator Panic, how do they expect someone who has no job to pay $250? This law is unconstitutional. Make those who want this useless info pay the fees instead. I'd refuse to pay.

http://www2.wrbl.com/news/2011/jun/02/bill-tighten-ala-sex-offender-registration-heads-b-ar-1920918/

Bill to tighten Ala. sex offender registration heads to Bentley

The bill would require weekly registration from homeless offenders.

By Alison Flowers
Published: June 02, 2011

The Alabama Senate unanimously passed measures to tighten the state's existing sex offender registration law Thursday. The bill is now headed to Governor Robert Bentley's desk for approval.

The new requirements would prohibit a sex offender who abused a sibling from living under the same roof as the person they abused. Homeless offenders would have to register weekly with law enforcement until they secure a permanent address. All offenders would have to supply extra information to be made public, under the proposed law.

But the measure that Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones says is long overdue: the $250 offender registration payment.

"Every time an individual moves, we have to notify the area where they're moving, and there's an expense involved each time."

Federal law mandates the sheriff's office track sex offenders, an endeavor that involves software and fees.

"The public wants to know, and they need to know in regard to these individuals in their neighborhoods, but it can be an expensive proposition at some point," Jones said.